Such knowledge is to bring our estimation of the Creator, closer to what it ought to be before submitting to His Might and Majesty. Who or what else could fathomably be ‘worthy’
The earth in its endless vastness and landscape will disappear if you were to travel for a single second, at the speed of light into the cosmos. One and a half million earths can fit into our sun, the centre of our solar system which happens to be a fraction of the size of other suns.
If you were to travel in a single direction for only a day at lightspeed, the solar system would disappear. Yet it turns out that every start has its own solar system. In fact, in our galaxy – the Milky Way, there may be 400 billion stars.
Then, the Milky Way would disappear if you were to travel for 100,000 years at lightspeed from the Milky Way. At a million years, neighbouring galaxies start to appear. If not enough, there may be 100 billion to possibly two trillion galaxies in the universe and the universe may be around 100 billion light years in width. And then to travel 700 million miles per hour for 100 billion years would still render your attempt to reach the end of the universe useless, for it is expanding, at the same speed.
This is where our observations and projections come to a halt. The Prophet ﷺ informs that the first heaven, which sits within the previously described, to the next is like a ring thrown into the desert. And the second to the third likewise, the third to the fourth, and so on, up to the seventh, sit over one another like canopies. Then the seventh, to Allah’s Throne, is like a ring thrown in the desert.
We only know of elements of his colossal creation, from the tiniest and most subtle to the extraordinarily huge and unfathomable. Such knowledge is to bring our estimation of the Creator, Allah jalla jalaaluh closer to what it ought to be before submitting to His Might and Majesty. Who or what else could fathomably be ‘worthy’ – which forms the etymological root of the English word ‘worship’; worthy of praise, gratitude and devotion. He does what He Wills because His Will is as prevailing as He is far above His feeble creation:
“They have not shown Allah His proper reverence…”[1]
And yet we find Him subsistent, subtle, endlessly merciful, “closer than our jugular veins,” explaining to our small minds the rationale behind injunctions and decrees and will love us, forgive us and remember us. He has favoured us with His guidance, from over the seventh heaven to the heart of his select servant. From it and through it we find our way, on our short journey, from fallen men back to the presence of Our Creator: when He decrees:
“…when on the Day of Judgment, the ˹whole˺ earth will be in His Grip, and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified and Exalted is He above what they associate (with Him)!”[2]
References:
[1] al-Qur’an, 39:67.
[2] Ibid
SarimBlog 
Still no evidence for any gods at all, including Allah. Most, if not every, religion makes the same claim, that their god is the creator, that one should know that their god is real by looking around. Not one theist can show their god merely exists, much less is the creator of what we see.
And if you do want to claim your god is the creator, it is amazingly incompetent since it was stupid enough to put the trachea beside the esophagus and manages to kill thousands of its supposedly favorite species every year.
LikeLike
To ‘Know *the* Creator’ is a very different argument than to say that my ‘god’ is the creator.
What is ludicrous, in fact, is to acknowledge a creator for what’s far more trivial such as your wristwatch but to deny it from what is far greater. It seems your claims are what need proof, not proof itself (as ‘proof’ relies on a metaphysical determination that cannot be proven by itself).
As for the characteristics of creation, that’s another issue and assumes a creator. So resolve that in your mind first, then explore the next.
Follow us and we will educate you!
LikeLike
Every theist claims that they know their god, but funny how not a single one of you can show that your gods exists, Ahmed. You also have yet to show that your god is the creator.
Yep, there are creators of watches and reality isn’t a watch, so you fail again, Ahmed. Your analogy fails from the beginning.
You have no evidence for your god, dear, much less proof. The ignorance in your religion is just like that of Christianity, etc. You all use the same arguments and funny how you all fail. It’s always great to watch when you all don’t accept the same arguments if proffered by another religion than your own. It’s such pure hypocrisy.
LikeLike
If English is not your first language, I’ll say it again – the Creator is Whom is my God. This means that the entity Who Created is He Who is worthy – I.e. the entity of worship.
As for ‘proof’, first, tell me what constitutes proof in your worldview if not existence from non existence itself. Before we speak of the character of existence.
Second, prove to us (since you’re the educated one in this dubious dogma defined by what it is not rather than what it is i.e., ‘Atheism’) that this form of proof is the determinant of Truth using purely empirical or observable methods.
And like I said, follow us and we will educate you. Otherwise time is better spent speaking to those who wish to learn than those whose first premise (before hearing anything) is to accuse their opponents of hypocrisy. I suspect your conclusion is very much your first assumption. This is the same for most Atheists so at least I’m not surprised. So much for the burden of proof.
LikeLike
I am a native English speaker and your “the Creator is Whom is my God” is wrong. It should be “The creator is who is my god”. Who is used when the word is performing the action, in this case, being your god.
There is no evidence for a creator, and many many religions claim that their particular god is the creator. Not one of you can demonstrate this.
So, your attempt to claim that the universe is evidence for your particular god fails.
I am indeed the educated one here, Ahmed. Your sentences continue to show that you have no idea what you are saying. This, “that this form of proof is the determinant of Truth using purely empirical or observable methods.” means nothing.
You educate no one, Ahmed. You repeat baseless claims, in your need to feel special.
LikeLike
Clubschaden,
Being of a ‘Creatorless’ persuasion, an ‘Atheist’ means one is ‘not a Theist’. There’s really no reason to get angry if you stand for nothing, genuinely believe Theism is a fairy-tale or only define yourself by what you *are not*. Unless of course something within you compels you towards blogs such as these and forces your New Atheist writers to spend even more time and expend more emotion trying to prove that there is no Creator.
That said, you are right about my language error. Well spotted and apologies. But with an ‘Atheistic’ worldview, you are philosophically not in a position acknowledge ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ since, the universe (and existence for that matter), according to the Atheist, came from nothing and built itself by sheer accident!
Perceptions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are thus also accidental chemical movements in the brain, disassociated from ‘Truth’ as paradoxically, according to an ‘Atheist’ – there is ‘no’ Truth. On what basis do you refer to right and wrong?
Where do we begin? Actually, I was hoping the barrier was language and not anything more fundamental. Now, rather than insisting four times on what I don’t know (before any real discussion), I ask you, since you “are the educated one”, what do you stand for? What is your truth, what is your purpose of life and does death make you nervous? Atheism is not an answer. Insisting you are ‘not a Theist’ (and I don’t assume you have or will) is as good as you putting on your CV that your proudest achievement is that you are not an astronaut.
Unless you answer these questions, with due respect, me knowing what you are not provides not real intellectual basis on which to discuss. Nonetheless, you are always welcome to visit and learn from my page and hopefully you may find that it guides you towards becoming something.
LikeLike
Ahmed,
Happily I do stand for something, actually a lot of things. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, and an atheist lacks belief in a god or gods. You are an atheist since you don’t believe in any of the many other gods that supposedly exist. You also try the very silly claim that somehow atheists shouldn’t show you and your fellow theists wrong, arguing that we shouldn’t spend the energy to do so. We do since your false claims cause real harm. Us atheist get to watch you theist murder each other constantly, even within your faiths with your competing sects. Shia and Sunni are such good examples of this.
You then try the argument from morality for your god. That doesn’t work either since theists don’t agree on what their gods consider right and wrong. You also have the problem that many of you accept actions from your gods that you, hopefully, would consider heinous if a human did them. This shows your morality entirely subjective, dependent on who does something, rather than the objective morality of the action itself. I can point out right and wrong quite easily, dependent on culture and yes, dear, that is subjective too. That’s what we humans are stuck with.
You demonstrate that you are also ignorant on what the Big Bang Theory actually says. Nothing happens by “accident” aka “randomly”. We have the laws of physics that prevent that.
Yep, perceptions of right and wrong are indeed from electrochemical interactions from the brain. No god needed. And they aren’t “accidental” either. I am always pleased when a theist’s claims are based on lies and willful ignorance. There is indeed truth. We can figure out facts all of the time, thanks to the scientific method.
I am indeed the educated one in this discussion. You can join me in being educated by not being so willfully ignorant in your need to cling to your baseless claims. I stand for knowledge and not lying to others in order to perpetuate a lie like your religion is. I stand for the freedom to abandon the ignorance from humans that wrote hundreds of years ago. I find that the meaning of life for me is to enjoy myself, including helping my fellow living beings (I find I am an Epicurean with a dash of Stoicism). No need to pretend that some petty god cares about who has sex with who. Death doesn’t bother me at all. I didn’t exist at one more and I will return to that. No need to have childish fantasies of some “perfect” place I get rewarded with or sadistic fantasies that anyone who disagrees with me deserve eternal torture.
I am indeed proud I am not a theist, so your analogy doesn’t work. There is nothing new I don’t know on your pages. I am here to point out that your claims are wrong and deserve no respect or fear.
LikeLike
So you’re basically ‘not a theist’, as discussed. Please outline your worldview so that my answers can satisfactorily conform to your way of thinking.
The scientific method was devised by a theist, and if right and wrong are simply chemical movements in the brain, why do you criticise murder? I mean how can the movement of your chemical reactions determine that another’s are henious? Randomness has no determination nor accountability for the matter. I’m not saying you have ‘subjective morality’, I’m saying that with such a worldview you have no morality at all.
Murder, rape and incest are just further uncontrollable chemical reactions – as I guess was the largest human (secular) catastrophe called the Second World War. A lot of randomly henious chemical energy there indeed. So much for ‘objective morality’, club.
Anyway, the Big Bang theory was mocked the ‘Big Bang’ mockingly by ‘Atheists’ like you as it undermined the (Atheist) postulation that the universe has no beginning. Read the works of your godfather Dawkins. Clearly you’re enormously ignorant as his ridiculous postulations claim that the universe was created by just another universe forming the ‘multiverse’ to infinite regression.
Of course, you’re welcome to read and learn from here and elsewhere and I always welcome questions that will help educate you further. We wouldn’t want you contradicting any New Athist cliche.
LikeLike
You are slow on the uptake, Ahmed. No surprise there. I am an atheist. I find Islam just as much of a lie as Christianity and other religions. You have no more evidence that your nonsense is true than any other theist. You *all* fail.
The scientific method was not devised by a theist. You claim so, but unsurprisingly you can’t give a name. How curious. You also try to use the argument from morality to give evidence your god exists. Alas, no theist can show this god exists nor what this god wants as “morality”.
I can criticize murder quite easily, and thus I can point out that your god is nothing more than a petty murderer. My morality comes from humanity, and yep, it is subjective and continually changes. Most civilizations do agree on some morals since they help civilization exist. No god is needed. The idea that murder is wrong is based on personal freedom, that taking away something from someone is not beneficial since it ends their ability to make choices. And yep, there are instances where people commit murder and it is indeed thanks to the chemistry in the brain being out of balance.
There is no randomness, dear, except perhaps in the quantum realm which we are not a part of. The laws of physics are very strict and things don’t happen randomly, as if in some Dr. Seuss-ian universe. Your ignorance of basic reality is notable.
I do indeed have a morality, and you are upset that I know that no one needs you or your god to have it. Theists like you have a problem with your morality since many of you have no problem with your god doing things like genocide, killing children, approval of slavery, etc. The argument is usually that since this god is supposed the “creator” and it can do whatever it wants. That is a morality that is no more than might equals right.
Murder rape and incest (oh yes, something your god loves!) aren’t usually uncontrollable chemical reactions. We have no true free will, although we do have an illusion of such since we cannot keep track of all that influences us. We can make value judgements, subjective as they might be. It is demonstrably harmful that genocide is wrong. Hitler tried it and gee, your god did it repeatedly if we can believe your holy book nonsense.
The Big Bang Theory was named that by Fred Hoyle, who did at one point claim to be an atheist and then said this “superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and … there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” – Hoyle, Fred (November 1981). “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections”, Engineering and Science, Volume 45:2, pp. 8–12Now, Hoyle is also the author of the “tornado in a junkyard” creationist claim that theists love to use. There is nothing at all that says that Hoyle was mocking anything, only describing the theory. So your baseless claim fails.
I don’t bother with Dawkins. Theists are so cute when you think that non-theists worship people like you do. The multiverse hypothesis is not a theory, and Dawkins is a biologist, not an astrophysicist. It’s an interesting idea, but that’s all it is.
Atheists disagree on a lot of things; not that there is no god or gods. You and I agree that there is no Zeus, no Odin, etc. We are atheists. The BBT fits the evidence and predicts evidence that we have found. That Hoyle was wrong means that his hypothesis, a steady-state universe, wasn’t correct. That’s how science works.
I am indeed welcome to read and learn elsewhere since there is nothing here that is true. It’s just the baseless claims of one more human being who wants to pretend he has an imaginary friend.
LikeLike
So your morality is “subjective and continually changes”, but this is simultaneously part of a “quantum realm” that follows the strict laws of physics! These chaotic, absurd and rather hilarious contradictions are precisely why I don’t usually speak to Atheists. You’ll subjectify the laws of physics and introduce multiple universes, deny reality to justify your first ‘not a theist’ premise you set out with from the start. For you, there being a Creator is a defeat, and you’d hate it, though I suspect you know it, so you’ll do the impossible to justify this. I don’t suppose you’d rather call yourself a ‘Misotheist’ as well as an ‘Atheist’? You deny truth, club, let alone be interested in it!
In terms of the scientific method, you’re free to research Galileo, Bacon or Alhazen. Take your pick. It is only you who, and the neo-Atheist cult who allegedly use the processes of these Theists to deny the first premise itself! For your comment on Liberalism, go and do the researching yourself. I believe its father, John Locke suggested the state should do something peculiar to Atheists! I didn’t assume I needed to educate you on rudimentary matters.
Finally, I only spoke of morality because this is how you first introduced your objection. Of course, there are a plethora of things I would have discussed and presented, were you the sort willing to learn. Obviously, you’ve made this clear six times that learning isn’t what you’re after. So I’ll reserve time for more fruitful endeavours.
LikeLike
“So your morality is “subjective and continually changes”, but this is simultaneously part of a “quantum realm” that follows the strict laws of physics”
Well, Ahmed, since I said nothing like that, it seems you have chosen to lie. How nice of you to show that you are just one more theist who has no concern for the truth.
I have no belief in multiple universes, so you fail with that claim too. And what “subjective the laws of physics” mean is beyond me.
There is no evidence for anycreator, and most certainly not your version of Allah. Oh and I have no problem calling myself a misotheist since I have the standards to hate the ignorance and violence your petty god requires.
The scientific method was developed by humans, who happened to be some variant of theist in a world where if you weren’t a theist, the theists would murder you. So your claim that religion led to the scientific method is unsupportable.
It’s always great fun when a theist whines that I need to do research for what they’ve falselely claimed. I always take that as another failed claim on the theist’s part. It is such a terrible shame that Islam has become ignorant, just as stupid as any conservative Christian. Ḥasan Ibn al-Haytham would be ashamed. Epicurus someone who did not believe in gods, or at least in their interest in human activities, was even before those who listed. Again, it not religion, it is humans.
No idea where you think I mentioned liberalism. Do explain.
“Finally, I only spoke of morality because this is how you first introduced your objection. Of course, there are a plethora of things I would have discussed and presented, were you the sort willing to learn. Obviously, you’ve made this clear six times that learning isn’t what you’re after. So I’ll reserve time for more fruitful endeavours.”
Nothing like another complete lie. You tried to use morality to show your god exists. It fails so you claim you really didn’t want to mention it. ROFL.
LikeLike
Club, as I suspected, you are an opponent of Theism, not on grounds of rationality – as rationality is not ‘proven’ and provides the basis for Science, but because, as you say, you are a Misotheist – in Greek a ‘hater of God’. Rationality is not proven, so I will not furnish you with ‘proof for God’, as that is a contradiction in terms and circular in nature. Can science prove itself? Proof depends on rationality, and rationality is what bears testimony to the Creator – such is universal, natural, intrinsic and intuitive. Remember these words.
Your use of the word ‘proof’ assumes your ability to reason, but rationality is nullified under Atheism as it cannot come out of non-rationality (blind, non-rational physical processes – the random quantum realm you talk about).
So, in reality, you’ve grievously lied again and again having asserted half a dozen times that you are instead, an ‘Atheist’ – a ‘rejecter of God’. The fact you ‘hate God’ is enough an admission of failure. You indeed do share the same vehement, ill-mannered and audacious method of argumentation as New Atheists, who I also believe are instead, ‘Misotheists’, ‘God haters’, like you. It proves an internal psychological condition and conflict that any sane man can only imagine.
Unfortunately, your vendetta against God for some tribulation is in itself a contradiction, as ‘God’, is by definition, He Whose Wisdom is far greater than ours. Misotheism thus sits at the climax of egotism and arrogance and people like you are not to be debated with. Debate is not possible with such presuppositions.
My case for morality is not to “show God exists”, but to reveal how absent minded and ludicrous an Atheist’s invocation of morality is, when right and wrong are but chemical imbalances (determined likewise by your chemical imbalances!), that, according to you is simultaneously “subjective” but “not random”. You relate morality with the unchanging laws of physics (which are called ‘laws’ for a reason) but assert their subjective nature. Please never apply for a job in engineering. These claims are laughable as I reiterate.
You made a comment about Liberalism on my other article – please don’t disown it here. You’ve been refuted. One doubts that John Locke, the Founding Father of Liberalism would advocate the death penalty for Atheists, as I suspect would have Ibn al-Haytham while harbouring an inner Atheistic attitude for fear of being murdered by a Theist. What a preposterous accusation and what complete disdain for the integrity of scholarship. But why suppose otherwise when Truth itself is a subject of interrogation, or in your case, the very subject of hatred.
LikeLike